>> On a given IPv6 Interface on a router, I understand that it is allowed
>> to configure a global unicast address with an Interface_ID
>> which is *different* from the Interface_ID of the Link Local Address.
>>
>> - is this something that should be discouraged
>> or instead
>> - can this be considered as normal practice e.g. for operator
>> convenience ?
it is perfectly legal to have gobal unicast address with different
interface ID. i usually assign the following to servers:
A) autoconfigured global unicast address
B) manually configured global unicast address, which will not change
even if we change ethernet cards.
i would register (B) to DNS forward mapping. sometimes I register
(A) too.
itojun
rtk0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 08:00:74:50:44:1e
media: Ethernet autoselect (none)
status: active
inet6 fe80::a00:74ff:fe50:441e%rtk0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
inet6 3ffe:501:ffff:ffff:a00:74ff:fe50:441e prefixlen 64 <-- A
inet6 3ffe:501:ffff:ffff::cafe prefixlen 64 <-- B
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
